
Study Design
Design:
Study group formation:
Time period of study:
Primary outcome domains examined:
Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and trainingOther outcome domains examined:
Study funded by:
Results
Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns
Outcome domain | Measure | Timing | Study quality by finding | Comparison group mean | Intervention group mean | Impact | Units | Findings | Sample size |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increase short-term earnings | Annual earnings | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
1,759.00 | 2,289.00 | 530.00 | 1993 dollars |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase long-term earnings | Weekly earnings | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
118.77 | 121.75 | 2.98 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
1,158 |
Increase long-term earnings | Annual earnings | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
6,447.00 | 6,376.00 | 8068.25 | 1997 dollars |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase short-term employment | Ever employed, annual | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
52.90 | 63.60 | 10.70 | percentage points |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase long-term employment | Ever employed, annual | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
73.00 | 70.00 | -3.00 | percentage points |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase long-term employment | Employed for four consecutive quarters | Year 5 |
High ![]() |
38.70 | 39.40 | 0.70 | percentage points |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase long-term employment | Currently employed | Month 60 |
High ![]() |
67.70 | 65.10 | -2.60 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,097 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly | Quarter 4 |
High ![]() |
82.70 | 78.20 | -4.50 | percentage points |
![]() |
3,012 |
Decrease short-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual | Year 1 |
High ![]() |
4,245.00 | 3,556.00 | -689.00 | 1993 dollars |
![]() |
1,922 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Months of Food Stamps receipt, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
33.80 | 30.50 | -3.30 | months |
![]() |
3,012 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
6,966.00 | 6,351.00 | -615.00 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
3,012 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Received AFDC/TANF, quarterly | Quarter 20 |
High ![]() |
27.80 | 24.30 | -3.50 | percentage points |
![]() |
3,012 |
Decrease long-term benefit receipt | Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, follow-up period | Years 1–5 |
High ![]() |
12,966.00 | 10,414.00 | -2552.00 | 1995 dollars |
![]() |
3,012 |
Increase education and training | Received high school diploma or GED | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
4.20 | 2.40 | -1.80 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,158 |
Increase education and training | Earned a license | Year 2 |
High ![]() |
9.20 | 7.00 | -2.20 | percentage points |
![]() |
1,158 |
High
Moderate
The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance
Sample Characteristics
Among the 4,554 study participants (1,557 in the LFA program, 1,542 in the HCD program and 1,455 in the comparison group), nearly 96 percent were female at an average age of 28 years when the study began. More than half of the participants were White, and almost 40 percent were Black. Nearly 58 percent were never married. The average number of children was 1 to 2 per family. Almost half (46 percent) of parents had some earnings in the past 12 months, and about 11 percent were employed at random assignment. Nearly 60 percent of parents had received a high school diploma or GED, and about 29 percent of parents were enrolled in education or training in the past 12 months. More than 99 percent received some AFDC benefits at the time of random assignment.
Age
Mean age | 28 years |
Sex
Female | 96% |
Male | 4% |
Participant race and ethnicity
Black or African American | 39% |
White | 50% |
Hispanic or Latino of any race | 8% |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 2% |
Unknown, not reported, or other | 1% |
Family status
Parents | 100% |
Single parents | 100% |
Participant employment and public benefit status
Were employed | 11% |
Were eligible for cash assistance | 100% |
Participant education
Had some postsecondary education | 5% |
Had a high school diploma or GED | 59% |
Did not have a high school diploma or GED | 41% |
Intervention Implementation
Implementing organization:
Program history:
Intervention services:
Mandatory services:
Comparison services:
Service receipt duration:
Intervention funding:
Study Publications
Freedman, Stephen (2000). The National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Four-year impacts of ten programs on employment stability and earnings growth, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_376.pdf.
Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, JoAnn Rock, Marisa Mitchell, Jodi Nudelman, Amanda Schweder, and Laura Storto (2000). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—Evaluating alternative welfare-to-work approaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/national-evaluation-welfare-work-strategies-evaluating-alternative-welfare-work-approaches-two-year-impacts-eleven-programs-executive-summary.
Hamilton, Gayle, Stephen Freedman, Lisa Gennetian, Charles Michalopoulos, Johanna Walter, Diana Adams-Ciardullo, Anna Gassman-Pines, Sharon McGroder, Martha Zaslow, Jennifer Brooks, and Surjeet Ahluwalia (2001). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies—How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five-year adult and child impacts for eleven programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf.
Hamilton, Gayle, Thomas Brock, Mary Farrell, Daniel Friedlander, and Kristen Harknett (1997). National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies–Evaluating two welfare-to-work program approaches: Two-year findings on the Labor Force Attachment and Human Capital Development programs in three sites, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_96.pdf.
View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.
3131.04-Grand Rapids Labor F